Get my lastest post delivered to your email inbox!

Search This Blog

WBMW

Daniel Greenfield: The Deconstruction of Marriage

The only question worth asking about gay marriage is whether anyone on the left would care about this crusade if it didn't come with the privilege of bulldozing another civilizational institution.

Gay marriage is not about men marrying men or women marrying women, it is about the deconstruction of marriage between men and women. That is a thing that many men and women of one generation understand but have trouble conveying to another generation for whom marriage has already largely been deconstructed.

The statistics about the falling marriage rate tell the tale well enough. Marriage is a fading institution. Family is a flickering light in the evening of the West.

The deconstruction is destruction. Entire countries are fading away, their populations being replaced by emigrants from more traditional lands whose understanding of the male-female relationship is positively reactionary. These emigrants may lack technology or the virtues of civilization, and their idea of marriage resembles slavery more than any modern ideal, but it fulfills the minimum purpose of any group, tribe or country-- it produces its next generation.

The deconstruction of marriage is not a mere matter of front page photos of men kissing. It began with the deconstruction of the family. Gay marriage is only one small stop on a tour that includes rising divorce rates, falling childbirth rates and the abandonment of responsibility by twenty and even thirty-somethings.

Each step on the tour takes apart the definition and structure of marriage until there is nothing left. Gay marriage is not inclusive, it is yet another attempt at eliminating marriage as a social institution by deconstructing it until it no longer exists.

There are two ways to destroy a thing. You can either run it at while swinging a hammer with both hands or you can attack its structure until it no longer means anything.

The left hasn't gone all out by outlawing marriage, instead it has deconstructed it, taking apart each of its assumptions, from the economic to the cooperative to the emotional to the social, until it no longer means anything at all. Until there is no way to distinguish marriage from a temporary liaison between members of uncertain sexes for reasons that due to their vagueness cannot be held to have any solemn and meaningful purpose.

You can abolish democracy by banning the vote or you can do it by letting people vote as many times as they want, by letting small children and foreigners vote, until no one sees the point in counting the votes or taking the process seriously. The same goes for marriage or any other institution. You can destroy it by outlawing it or by eliminating its meaningfulness until it becomes so open that it is absurd.

Every aspect of marriage is deconstructed and then eliminated until it no longer means anything. And once marriage is no longer a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman, but a ceremony with no deeper meaning than most modern ceremonies, then the deconstruction and destruction will be complete.

The deconstruction of marriage eroded it as an enduring institution and then as an exclusive institution and finally as a meaningful institution. The trendy folk who claim to be holding off on getting married until gay marriage is enacted are not eager for marriage equality, they are using it as an excuse for an ongoing rejection of marriage.

Gay marriage was never the issue. It was always marriage.

In the world that the deconstructionists are striving to build, there will be marriage, but it will mean nothing. Like a greeting card holiday, it will be an event, but not an institution. An old ritual with no further meaning. An egotistical exercise in attention-seeking and self-celebration with no deeper purpose. It will be a display every bit as hollow as the churches and synagogues it takes place in.

The deconstruction of marriage is only a subset of the deconstruction of gender from a state of being to a state of mind. The decline of marriage was preceded by the deconstruction of gender roles and gay marriage is being succeeded by the destruction of gender as anything other than a voluntary identity, a costume that one puts on and takes off.

Destroying gender roles was a prerequisite to destroying gender. Each deconstruction leads naturally to the next deconstruction with no final destination except total deconstruction.

Gay marriage is not a stopping point, just as men in women's clothing using the ladies room is not a stopping point. There is no stopping point at all.

The left's deconstruction of social institutions is not a quest for equality, but for destruction. As long as the institutions that preceded it exist, it will go on deconstructing them until there is nothing left but a blank canvas, an unthinking anarchy, on which it can impose its perfect and ideal conception of how everyone should live.

Equality is merely a pretext for deconstruction. Change the parameters of a thing and it ceases to function. Redefine it and expand it and it no longer means anything at all. A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but if you change 'rose' to mean anything that sticks out of the ground, then the entire notion of what is being discussed has gone and cannot be reclaimed without also reclaiming language.

The left's social deconstruction program is a war of ideas and concepts. Claims of equality are used to expand institutions and ways of living until they are so broad as to encompass everything and nothing. And once a thing encompasses everything, once a rose represents everything rising out of the ground, then it also represents nothing at all.

Deconstruction is a war against definitions, borders and parameters. It is a war against defining things by criminalizing the limitation of definitions. With inclusivity as the mandate, exclusivity, in marriage, or any other realm, quickly meets with social disapproval and then becomes a hate crime. If the social good is achieved only through maximum inclusivity and infinite tolerance, then any form of exclusivity, from property to person to ideas, is a selfish act that refuses the collective impulse to make all things into a common property with no lasting meaning or value.

As Orwell understood in 1984, tyranny is essentially about definitions. It is hard to fight for freedom if you lack the word. It is hard to maintain a marriage if the idea no longer exists. Orwell's Oceania made basic human ideas into contradictory things. The left's deconstruction of social values does the same thing to such essential institutions as marriage; which becomes an important impermanent thing of no fixed nature or value.

The left's greatest trick is making things mean the opposite of what they do. Stealing is sharing. Crime is justice. Property is theft. Each deconstruction is accompanied by an inversion so that a thing, once examined, comes to seem the opposite of what it is, and once that is done, it no longer has the old innate value, but a new enlightened one.

To deconstruct man, you deconstruct his beliefs and then his way of living. You deconstruct freedom until it means slavery. You deconstruct peace until it means war. You deconstruct property until it means theft. And you deconstruct marriage until it means a physical relationship between any group of people for any duration. And that is the opposite of what marriage is.

The deconstruction of marriage is part of the deconstruction of gender and family and those are part of the long program of deconstructing man. Once each basic value has been rendered null and void, inverted and revealed to be random and meaningless, then man is likewise revealed to be a random and meaningless creature whose existence requires shaping by those who know better.

The final deconstruction eliminates nation, religion, family and even gender to reduce the soul of man to a blank slate waiting to be written on.

That is what is at stake here. This is not a struggle about the right of equality, but the right of definition. It is not about whether men can get married, but whether marriage will mean anything at all. It is about preserving the shapes and structures of basic social concepts that define our identities in order to preserve those very concepts, rather than accepting their deconstruction into nullification.

The question on the table is whether the institutions that give us meaning will be allowed to retain that meaning. And that question is a matter of survival. Societies cannot survive without definitions. Peoples do not go on existing through the act of occupying space. The deconstruction of identity is also the destruction of identity.

Daniel Greenfield is a blogger and columnist born in Israel, currently living in New York City. He is a Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a contributing editor at the Family Security Matters.

David was named one of the Jewish Press' Most Worthwhile Blogs from 2006-2011. His writing is found many place online, where he writes on a wide range of topics.

It is a privilege for me to be able to share this enlightening article about marriage with you on WBMW, reposted here, with Daniel's personal permission. Learn more about him, by visiting Sultan Knish Blog -- you can thank me later.

Warnings: His writing will give you cause to think -- a lot!

Photos: Sultan Knish Blog

I've been holding this post in draft for a few weeks now. In re-reading it, before posting, and since General Conference this past weekend, it has had an even more chilling effect than it did on first read -- which is what prompted me in the first place, to contact Daniel and request that I be allowed to share it here. I had to, as it articulates so many thoughts, and much more, that have been going through my own head over these last few months -- and which are also contained in The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

In considering 'deconstruction' as a doctrine (Greenfield, obviously not intending to do so -- nevertheless, skillfully reveals it to be such.), at least from my perspective, and in so doing I can easily apply the principle to many other social issues currently affecting mainstream society, and ultimately the eternal family, some of which were addressed during this past weekend's General Conference; and quite directly I might add.

Through agency and obedience (well taught in conference) we can choose to either construct eternal life through Jesus Christ, the designated Mediator in Heavenly Father's Plan, or deconstruct that plan by making choices, whose advocate is the author of all opposition to the Father.

Kathryn, I have no words. When I was reading this, I kept on thinking about how Satan knows precisely what he is doing and his end game is much more than what we even realize. We are only looking at the tip of the iceberg.

In an interview with the Mormon Channel, Elder Oaks was asked about this and if it was too late to stop the momentum and tide of wickedness we are seeing. He said (I'm paraphrasing until I can find the quote) that basically, no, we won't be able to stop the wave of these trends in society. It is much like a river where there will be water rushing down all around us and the only safe, calm places will be hidden behind the rocks where the water moves around but not over. That is where we need to be. And while we can't stop the tide from turning or dam the flow, we can find pockets of safety and stay firm within those places with other like minded people. That safety lies within the doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and obedience (as discussed so powerfully in General Conference!)

Beautiful metaphor of taking cover behind the 'rock(s)' of safety; the Savior, revelation, priesthood power, etc... to shield us from this deconstruction/destructive forces that will inevitably occur in this mortal sphere, never intended to endure -- only those things which, by covenant, are promised...

Thanks for posting this. People need to understand what is really happening. This man is right. If Satan can take away purpose there is nothing left to hold to...then we are chained...to becoming nothing.

I would like to say, respectfully, that the very basic tenet of Mr. Friedman's argument is, too me, baseless. The idea that another person's opinion of marriage, or their marriage itself, would have any effect on my 14 year marriage, is senseless. Neither the state, nor my church, nor my friends can tell me what sort of marriage I can have. That matter is between my wife and myself. Of course, I will listen to what other people have to say about marriage so that I may learn about it (we all know that every marriage, or at least, every good marriage, is a work in progress), but to think that someone else's marriage, whether it be between a man and a women, or two men, would somehow harm my marriage, or the eventual marriage of my daughters, is just wrong. Sorry, but my marriage just isn't that weak, nor is my sense of self.

On another note, I must disagree with some of the comments as to Mr. Greenfield's writing. It's poorly reasoned and not at all well written, in my opinion. I welcome everyone's opinion, the best thing about our country, but I would hope to find some intelligence in the writing, even if I disagree with the conclusions. Mr. Greenfield arguments lack both intelligence and reason.

I think the idea of the deconstruction of identity- that outside forces can rob me of meaning by choosing to define things differently than I do- is interesting, if a little strange. It hadn't really occurred to me, for example, that different ideas of who or what God is can rob me of my God. My beliefs are the best that I can figure out, and other people come to different conclusions that are just as sincere and heartfelt as mine. I don't think I have ever met a person who was a "villain" and just wanted to destroy society. People mostly don't work that way.

It makes absolutely no sense to me to think that every person who accepts a certain political ideology is secretly motivated by trying to destroy my freedom by saying that I can decide for myself what being a woman means, or what my marriage should be like. It is wonderful to live in a country where my husband and I are considered capable of deciding for ourselves how best to work together to achieve our goals. I can decide to try to be a college professor, or I can stay home and take care of children. I could even decide I wanted to try to emulate an idealized version of a 1950s homemaker, and no one could stop me. I cherish these freedoms. As a Mormon woman, even a well-behaved one, I believe that it is a good thing for us to be free to follow the light of Christ within us, to have the freedom necessary to make meaningful choices to obey the rules that we have decided to follow. I don't think we as religious people need to be scared that other people can destroy our relationships with God, and I don't think there is any reason to write something in which "the left" can be seamlessly replaced with "Satan". They are not the same thing.

I do think it's interesting, though, to think about what it means to live in a society where definitions can be increasingly personal, where we decide for ourselves what behaviors are appropriate without social or legal coercion. I wonder if it can lead to some people feeling lost because identity is more of an open-ended question. That's one part of this article that seems worth thinking about.

This article falls apart for me on many points, but I will focus on one. My life stand in stark contrast to how this author wants to frame the argument. I am a married man of 17 years. My wife and I are raising two children who, forgive my immodesty, set the standard for kindness, courtesty, and community-mindedness. The deviousness which the author paints of those who desire equality for their neighbors should be an indicator to all reading it that the postulations put forth are problematic. The fact that a fraction of our population is biologically attracted to their same sex, and wants to make a formal and legal commitment - just like most humans - does not, in any way, pose a threat to my marriage, other marriages, my children, or other children. The author's attempt to frame the argument as deconstruction is a fallacy. A simple reading of history displays the notion of a monolithic marriage ideal as something that has rarely, if ever, existed as the primary definition.

Andrew, I could have written the first third of your paragraph myself to describe my own family. Meaning, that I am am not much different than yourself; other than the fact that I have perhaps a different religious background than you and I've been married twice as long, with 2.5 more children; and have almost 11 grandchildren. So, my marital credentials are fairly up there with yours.

What history does show us, is that we don't want to do anymore experimenting with the institution of marriage to further erode of basic unit of society. No fault divorce has wrecked havoc on the family, and now we want to allow even further deconstruction by withholding the natural birthright, inherent at conception and birth to one of a child's parents': either their biological mother or father? And you see no harm in this?

How will this hurt you? Look ahead my friend. Your natural grandchildren will be stripped from you! That is only one repercussion. Just one. Generations of families will be lost to one another. Children will not no who or whose they are? Children will be deprived of either a mother or a father in their lives. Can you imagine one of your well-adjusted children not having either you or your wife in their lives? That would be "Deconstruction".

Kathryn - I would like to respond to your comment here: "Generations of families will be lost to one another. Children will not no who or whose they are? Children will be deprived of either a mother or a father in their lives." What do you say to the many single parent households that exist in and out of the church? What do you say to the siblings that are raising younger siblings? What do you say to the grandparents raising children? In the church we have taught that our communities come together to help in raising our families. In my personal experience my straight father was more "tender" than my mother and they both brought different valuable things to the table because of who they are as people not because of who they are as genders. I also can't understand why people don't understand the simple idea of separation of church and state? Conservatives are so obsessed with their gun laws and the fact that they don't want people telling them how to live their lives, well what do you say when they are doing that exact same thing to the small fraction of homosexual citizens?

I thought I would attach this great quote by Thomas Jefferson. " I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Yes, MDSL, a child placed into a SSM will be deprived of either a mother or a father. That is a fact. If you happen to be a member of the LDS Church, which since you brought that up in your comment and have used that as an "our" to question me, in the Proclamation on the Family, 'we' are clearly taught as "doctrine" that it is the birthright of children to be born within the bonds of "matrimony" between a man and a woman. In other words, to advocate in opposition to that order, is to deconstruct what God has ordained.

Now, my parents divorced when I was 10, so I do speak to myself when I am discussing these issues. As well, my own mother was adopted. As well, I have a grandfather who was adopted. In other words, there are many members of my own biological family who are currently LOST to us because because we know not where to find them.

However, because of the sealing power of the priesthood and because of natural/traditional marriage, this is not a problem -- BECAUSE, marriages that are civil (which is WHY the LDS Church is very interested even in civil marriage) are on the path of becoming eternal.

So that is what I would say to your questions… not to worry, if they are in keeping with the principles that God has established… ultimately all of His blessings will flow unto them in His time. If grandparents must step in for a time being, then that is wonderful. If mothers are single for a season, then He will be by their side. But to go contrary to His will and try to justify that which is contrary to His eternal plan… are you kidding me? No. I'm sorry, that is not enlightened by any stretch of the imagination.

Don't ask me, a mere member of the Church, to try and justify something clearly taught by prophets of God, ongoing, and boldly in our most recent General Conference.

I value my marriage more than anything on this planet, and still I am for gay marriage, therefore the fundamental argument of this post is flawed.

I would think that it would be better for a child to be adopted by a married gay couple and raised in stability than to be forced to stay with a single teen mother who cannot emotionally or physically provide for the child. Adopted children are not being stripped from an intact, healthy family. He or she is being given a real chance for stability and happiness. How is anything wrong with that?

Thank you for bringing out that single mother clarification. It is one thing to end up a single mother, due to divorce; very unfortunate indeed. It is clearly another to choose to be a single mother from the get-go, which I do not support. In the case of an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, I fully support adoption into a traditional marriage and not a same-gender relationship.

I can't tell you how many good traditional married couples, who cannot conceive are desperately waiting to adopt, right now; my own niece and her husband among them. I am actually working on a post right now that will go up probably next week addressing this topic. But I'm with you here in that I do not support single by choice mothers, teens or mature women making such a choice.

I am a strong advocate for adoption into a family where these children are given the birthright which they naturally have a right to: a mom and a dad. This birthRIGHT is inherent both at conception and birth. Let's make sure these babies receive what God intended.